We investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) to disentangle text variables—to remove the textual traces of an undesired forbidden variable in a task sometimes known as text distillation and closely related to the fairness in AI and causal inference literature. We employ a range of various LLM approaches in an attempt to disentangle text by identifying and removing information about a target variable while preserving other relevant signals. We show that in the strong test of removing sentiment, the statistical association between the processed text and sentiment is still detectable to machine learning classifiers post-LLM-disentanglement. Furthermore, we find that human annotators also struggle to disentangle sentiment while preserving other semantic content. This suggests there may be limited separability between concept variables in some text contexts, highlighting limitations of methods relying on text-level transformations and also raising questions about the robustness of disentanglement methods that achieve statistical independence in representation space.

In this paper, we investigate a type of semantic shift that occurs when a sudden event radically changes public opinion on a topic. Looking at Sweden’s decision to apply for NATO membership in 2022, we use word embeddings to study how the associations users on Twitter have regarding NATO evolve. We identify several changes that we successfully validate against real-world events. However, the low engagement of the public with the issue often made it challenging to distinguish true signals from noise. We thus find that domain knowledge and data selection are of prime importance when using word embeddings to study semantic shifts.

We address two understudied areas related to explainability for neural text models. First, class explanations. What features are descriptive across a class, rather than explaining single input instances? Second, the type of features that are used for providing explanations. Does the explanation involve the statistical pattern of word usage or the presence of domain-specific content words? Here, we present a method to extract both class explanations and strategies to differentiate between two types of explanations – domain-specific signals or statistical variations in frequencies of common words. We demonstrate our method using a case study in which we analyse transcripts of political debates in the Swedish Riksdag.

Large Language Models (LLMs) make natural interfaces to factual knowledge, but their usefulness is limited by their tendency to deliver inconsistent answers to semantically equivalent questions. For example, a model might supply the answer “Edinburgh” to “Anne Redpath passed away in X.” and “London” to “Anne Redpath’s life ended in X.” In this work, we identify potential causes of inconsistency and evaluate the effectiveness of two mitigation strategies: up-scaling and augmenting the LM with a passage retrieval database. Our results on the LLaMA and Atlas models show that both strategies reduce inconsistency but that retrieval augmentation is considerably more efficient. We further consider and disentangle the consistency contributions of different components of Atlas. For all LMs evaluated we find that syntactical form and task artifacts impact consistency. Taken together, our results provide a better understanding of the factors affecting the factual consistency of language models.